Homograph is a real word (spelled identically, but have different meanings think fair ( just or morally right (life isn't fair), appealling appearance (fair skinned), a market place), but they are using it a new context. The occurance of using Unicode to do bad things with domains is so uncommon there is no word for it, they coined a word to make it something they could actually talk about.
I would think a better term to coin would be "homoglyph", because that is what it is. Two different characters with the same glyph. Plus this has the advantage of not being a word already in use (to my knowledge).
Wouldn't work for me. I'm using Opera for Mac. I have to say, Opera for Mac has got to be one of the shittiest browsers I've ever used. The UI is so slow that half the time I make spelling errors when typing URLs because I can't see what I'm typing until I stop typing and wait for Opera to catch up.
The only reason I use it at all is because my favorite browser, iCab, doesn't display nested comments on Slashdot correctly for some strange reason. The show up unindented.
There is a fourth group. That is the group of people who "collect" bootlegs. People did it with warez and they do it with movies, TV shows, and music albums.
Can you name a tool that can be used for illegal purposes that is illegal in the united states? Crack pipes? Guns? penises?
Crack pipes are most definately illegal in the US. If you have a crack pipe on you and a police officer finds it, you can, and probably will get charged with Possession of Drug Paraphenalia.
The wildest thing he's stated so far (without any real evidence, just lots of "It is my strong belief") is that space and time are discrete on a very small scale, and are stuctured as a network of nodes.
Quantum Mechanics has already suggested that both space and time are discrete on small scales, and I believe there is quite a bit of indirect evidence to support this claim. The discreteness is based on Planck's constant, and the unit length and unit time are approx.10^-33 cm and 10^-43 sec respectively (which if you do the math are equivalent if you equate 1 year and one 1 light year). All lengths of space or time are either multiples or one over a multiple of length.
The claim that they are structured as a network of nodes is certainly speculation, but it is at least a logical speculation. The points would probably have to be connected somehow.
Yes, there are such things called inductive proofs in math, but those are still deductive processes. Deduction is the process of taking facts that you know to be 100% certain and, using valid logic, creating other facts that you know to be 100% certain. Induction, on the other hand is the process of taking a bunch of examples, and generalizing from them. Induction can never be 100% certain. Rigorous mathematical proofs can only use deductive processes. Mathematicians, however, can and often do use induction to guess at things which they then try to prove through deductive means.
Maybe you shouldn't read Discover, but rather read more accurate (that is a relative phrase) magazines such as Scientific American, Nature, or Science News. And before everyone yells at me, I do realize they aren't always the best journalists, but IMO they are the best pop science magazines (as opposed to real scientific journals, which are too specialized, too dry, and mostly too damned expensive for the general public).
What if we have no way of measuring the matter in which they exist? Does this mean that it doesn't exist?
If there is no possible way that we could observe this matter even in principle, then yes, it does mean it doesn't exist. If something is completely unobservable, then there is no possible way it could have any affect on the universe. If it cannot have any effect on the universe, than the word exist is meaningless when applied to it because the existence or non-existence of it doesn't produce different situations.
This is part of my reasoning against the existence of anything supernatural, because anything we can observe is natural and anything we can't observe doesn't exist.
The reason I always thought the pyschic hotlines were obviously fake is the fact that they don't call you right before you try to call them, that and the fact that they have to ask you for your name and birthday.
Evolution cannot be tested by science, either. To my mind, Evolution is not a Scientific Theory in that you cannot devise an experiment where the results would disprove the tenants of Evolutionary Science.
First of all, "Evolution" isn't a theory at all, its an observation. It is an observation that the allele frequencies in a population change over time, and since this has already been observed, you are correct, it cannot be disproven.
P.S. Social Science currently has as much science in it as Psychology does. Hopefully, both of these fields will get solid theoretical foundations in the near future. I for one would love to see Social Science mature into Asimov's vision of Psychohistory.
The Theories of Evolution are a different matter. These theories (some are more accurately called hypotheses) can be disproven, and (depending on who you ask) some already have been. The most prominent example of this is the theory of natural selection through mutation. The quick changes we see in certain parts of the fossil record suggest that this theory (which predicts a relatively constant rate of change) is not the whole picture. Enter theories like punctuated equilibrium.
I will grant that it is certainly harder to disprove evolutionary theories because they don't make such precise predictions as theories like relativity, quantum mechanics, and the theory of gravity which have equations that give a precise mathematical description of what the theory states is going on. But they still make predictions and still can be falsified through evidence.
but enough of a correlation *does* allow you to deduce a causative relationship.
That should be "induce". Induction is what happens through correlation. Deduction happens through valid logic and is 100% certain. Math uses deduction, science uses induction.
It also cops out by saying "In evolutionary theory it is taken as axiomatic that an original self-replicating life form existed in the distant past, regardless of its origin." But that's the hard bit - if you can't explain the first self-replicating life form, then the argument that life appeared from nothing (as opposed to being created) doesn't hold water.
The article was quite right when it said that, evolutionary theory only deals with life once it already exists. In fact, it only deals with it once it is abundant enough to be considered a population.
The theory that deals with life's emergence is called abiogenesis, and BTW Christianity has to deal with it as well. Abiogenesis is the formation of life from inorganic matter, whether it happened through naturalistic means or through God. The naturalistic version has quite an edge on the religious version here, having a few experiments showing at least the possibility of creating basic amino acids in the primordial soup. All the religious version has is "God did it" which isn't an explanation at all, but rather a cop out. Perhaps some "Creation Scientists" would be kind enough to at least hypothesize about exactly how "God did it" and then try to do some experiments to verify those hypotheses predictions. Until then the naturalistic explanation is the only game in town.
"Observed Instances of Speciation" indicates examples of microevolution only.
Really? I must have missed the meeting where everyone decided to change the definition of macroevolution yet again. I could have sworn at least a couple years ago, all examples of speciation were considered macroevolution. Or is "kind" more general now than species? For the future, please define now exactly what you will accept as macroevolution so that when it has been observed, if it hasn't already, you will take it sitting down instead of trying to change the definition once more to support your irrational and unsubstantiated disbeliefs in evolution.
It only becomes communism when you are forced to give stuff away for free.
I disagree with this. I must have a very different impression of communism than most people. To me, the word communism conjures up images of The Hawg Farm, The Rainbow Family, and other 60's style communes rather than images of Stalinst Russia and Maoist China. These types of societies do abolish the concept of personal property for the most part, but it is most certainly voluntary.
Maybe you should do a little research before you make a greatly incorrect factual statement like that.
Re:From the article...
on
Time Travel
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
First of all, he was talking about the particle going back into the past. He talked about a second neutron appearing. This would be the one from the future that was sent into its past (which would be the present [god i hate talking about time travel]).
What would probably happen is:
You have the first neutron.
A second one appears, being the future neutron.
The first one disappears, having gone into the past to become the second neutron.
Only the second one remains, which is now indistinguishable from the first one, except for the fact that it is now slightly older than it should be.
Re:Actually April Fools is named because...
on
AOL Buying Up Blogs
·
· Score: 2
Actually I believe that was New Years Day you are thinking of. Christmas has always been on December 25, since it replaced the feast celebrating Mithras' birthday.
Slashdot Mirror
I would think a better term to coin would be "homoglyph", because that is what it is. Two different characters with the same glyph. Plus this has the advantage of not being a word already in use (to my knowledge).
The only reason I use it at all is because my favorite browser, iCab, doesn't display nested comments on Slashdot correctly for some strange reason. The show up unindented.
There is a fourth group. That is the group of people who "collect" bootlegs. People did it with warez and they do it with movies, TV shows, and music albums.
Crack pipes are most definately illegal in the US. If you have a crack pipe on you and a police officer finds it, you can, and probably will get charged with Possession of Drug Paraphenalia.
Quantum Mechanics has already suggested that both space and time are discrete on small scales, and I believe there is quite a bit of indirect evidence to support this claim. The discreteness is based on Planck's constant, and the unit length and unit time are approx.10^-33 cm and 10^-43 sec respectively (which if you do the math are equivalent if you equate 1 year and one 1 light year). All lengths of space or time are either multiples or one over a multiple of length.
The claim that they are structured as a network of nodes is certainly speculation, but it is at least a logical speculation. The points would probably have to be connected somehow.
There is nothing in your comment that has anything to do with Godel's Theorem.
Yes, there are such things called inductive proofs in math, but those are still deductive processes. Deduction is the process of taking facts that you know to be 100% certain and, using valid logic, creating other facts that you know to be 100% certain. Induction, on the other hand is the process of taking a bunch of examples, and generalizing from them. Induction can never be 100% certain. Rigorous mathematical proofs can only use deductive processes. Mathematicians, however, can and often do use induction to guess at things which they then try to prove through deductive means.
Maybe you shouldn't read Discover, but rather read more accurate (that is a relative phrase) magazines such as Scientific American, Nature, or Science News. And before everyone yells at me, I do realize they aren't always the best journalists, but IMO they are the best pop science magazines (as opposed to real scientific journals, which are too specialized, too dry, and mostly too damned expensive for the general public).
If there is no possible way that we could observe this matter even in principle, then yes, it does mean it doesn't exist. If something is completely unobservable, then there is no possible way it could have any affect on the universe. If it cannot have any effect on the universe, than the word exist is meaningless when applied to it because the existence or non-existence of it doesn't produce different situations.
This is part of my reasoning against the existence of anything supernatural, because anything we can observe is natural and anything we can't observe doesn't exist.
Someone needs to port distributed.net clients, SETI@home, or Folding@home (I think thats what its called) to the human brain.
I don't know about capable, but I certainly would be willing, as long as the conversation doesn't become a lecture.
Yes, but since the center of gravity in the earth/sun system is somewhere INSIDE the sun, it is quite accurate to say the Earth orbits the Sun.
The reason I always thought the pyschic hotlines were obviously fake is the fact that they don't call you right before you try to call them, that and the fact that they have to ask you for your name and birthday.
First of all, "Evolution" isn't a theory at all, its an observation. It is an observation that the allele frequencies in a population change over time, and since this has already been observed, you are correct, it cannot be disproven.
P.S. Social Science currently has as much science in it as Psychology does. Hopefully, both of these fields will get solid theoretical foundations in the near future. I for one would love to see Social Science mature into Asimov's vision of Psychohistory.
The Theories of Evolution are a different matter. These theories (some are more accurately called hypotheses) can be disproven, and (depending on who you ask) some already have been. The most prominent example of this is the theory of natural selection through mutation. The quick changes we see in certain parts of the fossil record suggest that this theory (which predicts a relatively constant rate of change) is not the whole picture. Enter theories like punctuated equilibrium.
I will grant that it is certainly harder to disprove evolutionary theories because they don't make such precise predictions as theories like relativity, quantum mechanics, and the theory of gravity which have equations that give a precise mathematical description of what the theory states is going on. But they still make predictions and still can be falsified through evidence.
That should be "induce". Induction is what happens through correlation. Deduction happens through valid logic and is 100% certain. Math uses deduction, science uses induction.
The article was quite right when it said that, evolutionary theory only deals with life once it already exists. In fact, it only deals with it once it is abundant enough to be considered a population.
The theory that deals with life's emergence is called abiogenesis, and BTW Christianity has to deal with it as well. Abiogenesis is the formation of life from inorganic matter, whether it happened through naturalistic means or through God. The naturalistic version has quite an edge on the religious version here, having a few experiments showing at least the possibility of creating basic amino acids in the primordial soup. All the religious version has is "God did it" which isn't an explanation at all, but rather a cop out. Perhaps some "Creation Scientists" would be kind enough to at least hypothesize about exactly how "God did it" and then try to do some experiments to verify those hypotheses predictions. Until then the naturalistic explanation is the only game in town.
Really? I must have missed the meeting where everyone decided to change the definition of macroevolution yet again. I could have sworn at least a couple years ago, all examples of speciation were considered macroevolution. Or is "kind" more general now than species? For the future, please define now exactly what you will accept as macroevolution so that when it has been observed, if it hasn't already, you will take it sitting down instead of trying to change the definition once more to support your irrational and unsubstantiated disbeliefs in evolution.
I disagree with this. I must have a very different impression of communism than most people. To me, the word communism conjures up images of The Hawg Farm, The Rainbow Family, and other 60's style communes rather than images of Stalinst Russia and Maoist China. These types of societies do abolish the concept of personal property for the most part, but it is most certainly voluntary.
Observed Instances Of Speciation
Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
29 Evidences For Macroevolution
Maybe you should do a little research before you make a greatly incorrect factual statement like that.
What would probably happen is:
Actually I believe that was New Years Day you are thinking of. Christmas has always been on December 25, since it replaced the feast celebrating Mithras' birthday.
Hey wow! I got my first fp! And I wasn't even trying. Too bad I wasted it on something relevant.
You know, the editors might try to think up some jokes that are actually funny once in a while.
swap (int a, int b) { a = a + b; b = a - b; a = a - b; } // no pesky third variable
Here's a much faster algorithim: gr = (sqrt(5) + 1) / 2; grp = (gr - 1) * -1; int fib(n) { return (gr^(n+1) - grp^(n+1))/(gr-grp); }